>And by extension, it means that in every interview cycle, some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t thi

>And by extension, it means that in every interview cycle, some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. I hate the assertion of causation here. As always, this relationship means that A causes B, B causes A, and/or A and B have a common cause (or even more possibilities, given that we're essentially conditioning on this event taking place). Aline argues that "some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well," but I think it's more plausible that there is something that happens in the interview that simultaneously makes the interviewer think they did poorly and makes them think poorly of the company. If you're rating me on my ability to name country capitals in a statistics interview, I'm going to think you don't want to hire me and I'll think you're an idiot I'd hate to work for. Or if you're being kind of a jerk or being impatient and checking your cell phone every 30 seconds, I'll think I'm doing poorly and that you're rude and I wouldn't like to work with you. Common cause seems much more likely to me.